Paper trail: Inside the stem cell wars

ALL’S fair in love and war, they say, but science is supposed to obey more noble ideals. New findings are submitted for publication, the studies are farmed out to experts for objective “peer review” and the best research appears promptly in the most prestigious journals.

Some stem cell biologists are crying foul, however. Last year, 14 researchers in this notoriously competitive field wrote to leading journals complaining of “unreasonable or obstructive reviews”. The result, they claimed, is that “publication of truly original findings may be delayed or rejected”.

Triggered by this protest, New Scientist scrutinised the dynamics of publication in the most exciting and competitive area of stem cell research, in which cells are “reprogrammed” to acquire the versatility of those of an early-stage embryo. In this fast-moving field, where a Nobel prize is arguably at stake, biologists are racing feverishly to publish their findings in top journals.

There are several plausible and reasonable explanations, but feelings are running high nonetheless. With two of the most delayed papers coming from a Japanese researcher who pioneered the field, and some of his rivals using controversial channels that give members of the US National Academy of Sciences an inside track to rapid publication,

To continue reading this premium article, subscribe for unlimited access.